1 Sydney B (22)
2 Sydney A
3 Cambridge C
4 Monash A (21)
5 Oxford A
6 Oxford C
7 Seattle A (20)
8 Princeton A
9 TCD Phil B
10 Helsinki A
11 Canterbury A
12 Oxford B (19)
13 UCD L&H A
14 Hart House B
15 Harvard A
16 Monash B
17 Manchester A
18 Hart House A
19 MIT A
20 Brandeis A
21 Swarthmore A
22 Queensland A (18)
23 Vic Wellington A
24 Queens Uni A
25 Yale A
26 Auckland A
27 Sydney C
28 Yale B
29 Nottingham A
30 McGill A
31 Loyola A
32 Stanford A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Viele Danke
Wow. A couple of surprises there. Am dissapointed to see only two Irish teams but I'm sure they'll do us proud!
Thanks for getting the break up so soon. Well done!
there is no such thing as u c d hist
WTF?
Invariably alot of the local talent is utilised in other ways. The 3 institution cap is opening up the break alot this year. If it had been more you can imagine institutions like Sydney and Oxford breaking more teams...
It's UCD L&H A, Stephen and Ian who broke 13th.
So many more American teams than in the past. That is an exciting thing! May American 'policy debate' die!
-Seattle
Sydney breaks all its teams for the second year in a row and 22 out of 26 teams from the past five years... but they haven't had a best speaker since 2004.
Actually the 19 pt bracket starts at 12 with Oxford B.
I have a feeling Sydney might have a best speaker this year...
Not a single Asian team for two consecutive Worlds ? *sigh*
Don't worry, they still got 1/4 of the DCAs for Koc...
is cambridge c Richard and harish?
Yup Richard and Harish! Come on boys!
Doesn't just having 3 teams/school undermine the quality of the tournament? Yes, it opens up the break, but it undermines its integrity if you don't have the best teams in it that you possibly could have. By excluding more teams from Oxford or Cambridge or Australia, you're not really doing service to good teams. Yes, you get more teams breaking, but they'll just be worse teams because there are fewer good teams from schools that are able to bring in really good debaters.
I never meant to imply that a 3 team cap was good. I think it's awful. However there are also good reasons, namely the increased number of institutions who attend. It just sucks alot of good debaters will miss out...
Will and James were Oxford D at Vancouver, I guess if there had been a three team cap they wouldn't have gotten to go to that. Or the winners, come to think of it, Sydney G.
As I said, 3 teams per institution sucks, and if the reason behind it is to make the break "more open" then that sucks too. I simply note that it is unfair to blame the organisation because the tournament has a max capacity of approximately 300 or so teams. Sometimes logistics create real problems in having more than 300. Once that max was set, more than 3 per institution would have meant preventing a large number of institutions from attending, which is also unfair.
That said, the usual reason (limited adjudicator pool) doesn't seem to have been a problem this year, the adjudication pool seems to be overflowing with talent.
what makes you think oxford or sydney d would be better than the teams who broke?
Arrogance and ignorance?
Thought so.
You need a cap. 3 is a number. How many do you think a Institution should get?
"what makes you think oxford or sydney d would be better than the teams who broke?
Arrogance and ignorance?
Thought so"
Or because (less belligerently), since two finalists in Vancouver were D and G teams, Oxford and Sydney are clearly capable of fielding multiple teams of a similar standard to their high-ranking teams in this competition...?
so the number of temas you get should be based on the performance you put in 2 years ago?
Conversly should institutions who never break more than one team only be allowed send 1 team? As they obviously don't have the sept to jusify 3 teams?
What about institutions that never break teams?why are they still allowed compete?
To assume that certain institutions will always have better speakers and deserve favouravle treatment is just silly.
How many teams should Sydney and oxford have been allowed to send?
1000
Declan conflates his two quite separate questions:
Declan's Q1: ""what makes you think oxford or sydney d would be better than the teams who broke?"
A1: Precedent
Declan's Q2: "How many teams should Sydney and oxford have been allowed to send?"
A2: Whatever the org comm of the competition decides
But either way, arguing fervently that three is the magic number is, well, "just silly"
Go Sydney!
There is no guarantee how many teams any given institution will break in any given year. What I am positive of is that if institutions like Sydney, Cambridge, Oxford, Monash, etc, are all allowed to send 4,5,6 or 7 teams instead of 3 teams, the competition will be of a higher standard. Of course, that probably isn't possible because of logistics.
I don't think its just logistics that makes it a bad idea. If some institutions are able to send more teams than others based on previous results then it just makes it harder for weak institutions to breed strong speakers. The University of Queensland is a good example of a society that became very strong because it developed a critical mass of IV experienced debaters, even if they weren't breaking teams prior to 2005.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the number of teams you can send be based on how you've done in the past. Merely that if institutions can logistically send 5 teams max instead of 3 teams max, then that is a good thing for all involved.
I don't understand. We've had very generous team caps since 2005, and UQ have done well since then. How does a team cap of 5 hurt them?
Really? If, say, 20 top universities can send 5 teams (and, realistically, due to finances it will most likely be the best performing universities that can send 5) that means 100 teams come from 20 institutions.
If the team cap is, say, 300 that means 1/3 of the teams comes from 20 institutions.
I'm not sure that is a good thing for Worlds is supposed to be about - which, I don't believe, is about the two chaps or chappesses who win but about bringing together 300 teams from around the world.
Should we really stop a new university coming to Worlds so that Sydney and Oxford can have a fourth and fifth team? I don't believe so. If we have an overall team cap, it makes sense to have a individual team cap to open up the competition somewhat.
Just my thoughts - I think that the big, strong universities have enough of an advantage already, and the other teams will never catch up if we keep letting more teams in. We don't necessarily need to give them a 5th, 6th or, in the G team's case, 7th spot just in case their first 4 teams don't win.
Happy New Year
R
I don't think anyone is advocating that new universities miss out. Simply that if there are extra places open, or if there is a much bigger cap (say 400 teams) which facilitates this, then there is no harm in allowing it, only benefit. This discussion only takes place in circumstances where the cap is not an issue.
no ateneo teams on the break? wtf...
When the cap is 6 (as it usually is) it is relevant to only a handful of institutions because most can't afford to send that many. So you don't actually restrict the number of institutions significantly.
It's pretty sad that some of the best debaters in the world (e.g. this year's debaters from sydney A who both didn't get selected in any of the five teams for thailand despite breaking to quarters in vancouver the year before) miss out just to add a few extra debaters - many of whom aren't serious about debating and only rock up for the free drinks and social activities - from a few extra institutions.
More to the point, if international sporting events allow extra entries to countries that have more gifted athletes, why not worlds too?
Post a Comment